And yet ANOTHER mass shooting... (San Bernardino)

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Is this world-wide or just within our borders? Like outlawing the manufacturing and sale of drugs? Is that what you mean?

We can't dictate to the world, but it would be ideal. But I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek.

Gun people are kinda leaving draconian measures as the only option. They block the banning of assault weapons, block background checks for gun shows and other measures.

It is surprising how gun people are only concerned about their rights. What about the rights of the people who are left lying dead in puddles of their own blood? We've had 351 mass shootings in 331 days this year. We can't stop them all. But we do a disservice to those who have lost their lives by not even trying.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

"Some" doesn't even begin to accurately describe the situation going on in your country right now. I'm sure owning a weapon would be pretty cool, but at the same time I don't think it's worth the innocent lives being lost every time someone loses their temper and starts firing into a crowd.

I don't have the stats available on how many deaths are caused by people who have guns because they are "pretty cool" and then lose their temper and start firing into a crowd. I don't think it's more than a drop in the bucket though.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

"Some" doesn't even begin to accurately describe the situation going on in your country right now. I'm sure owning a weapon would be pretty cool, but at the same time I don't think it's worth the innocent lives being lost every time someone loses their temper and starts firing into a crowd.

And losing that right isn't worth the lives of 1,10, 1000 or 1 million to me.

Without that right, you have no other rights.

[Groundhog]

They may not be the ones pulling the trigger all the time, but it's thanks to them that these losers and mentally ill mass shooters have easy access to the weapons needed to carry out the attacks.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

And losing that right isn't worth the lives of 1,10, 1000 or 1 million to me.

Without that right, you have no other rights.

Bullshit. The government wants you dead, they'll just come drop a fuel-air explosive on your head. This isn't the 1800's anymore.

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

And losing that right isn't worth the lives of 1,10, 1000 or 1 million to me.

Without that right, you have no other rights.

I like to think that the rest of the civilized world is proof to the contrary Jon, but I don't expect you to alter your views ever.

[stevew]

Plus there's like 20k+ gun related suicides each year

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

We've had 351 mass shootings in 331 days this year. We can't stop them all. But we do a disservice to those who have lost their lives by not even trying.

Roughly 7,000 murders are committed every year in inner-cities over drugs. That's been going on for decades and nobody cares and you can't ever stop that. Your gun ban simply won't change the overall death toll.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by stevew

Plus there's like 20k+ gun related suicides each year

That's 20,000 less people that are willing to run around on the streets shooting up others...at least.

[Schmidty]

Originally Posted by stevew

Plus there's like 20k+ gun related suicides each year

Yeah. Let's also ban ropes. Suicide by hanging has been on the rise.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Dutch

That's 20,000 less people that are willing to run around on the streets shooting up others...at least.

Or statistically speaking, that's 1-2 less people that are willing to run around on the streets shooting up others...

[bob]

Just curious what people think - let's say 2nd amendment is repealed. Then what? Government sends troops to search door to door? Armed battles break out?

[duckman]

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB841185795318576500

[duckman]

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...-half-of-2014/

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by bob

Just curious what people think - let's say 2nd amendment is repealed. Then what? Government sends troops to search door to door? Armed battles break out?

Well, I know we dont actually have the resources to go door to door. It will effectively make tens of millions of Americans criminal by default and since a vast majority of lawful gun owners are registered with the government, they would be easy prey for targeted search and seizure as necessary...mostly right-wing citizens at that.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I don't have the stats available on how many deaths are caused by people who have guns because they are "pretty cool" and then lose their temper and start firing into a crowd. I don't think it's more than a drop in the bucket though.

There are hardly any stats and research on causes of gun violence, because there has been great push back to allow any kind of such research. It is kind of hard to even begin discussion when you aren't allowed to gather even basic information.

[Kodos]

Well, heavens. Discussion and research could lead to reasonable solutions. We can't have that!

[CU Tiger]

Yesterdays actions are WHY citizens need guns. Everyone of them.
A law banning guns won't stop domestiic terrorists from having them.

But yeah lets not blame these morons, letsblame their guns.

Dui kills more than guns every year, what are we banning cars or alcohol?

[cartman]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Dui kills more than guns every year, what are we banning cars or alcohol?

No, but things are discussed like lowering the BAC level or requiring ignition interlocks. But at least a discussion happens. Not just saying, "Well, that is just the way it is."

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Dui kills more than guns every year, what are we banning cars or alcohol?

Are you comfortable with that same level of regulation for guns?

[Kodos]

We do have a ban on combining alcohol and cars (over a certain limit). And I think those laws should be much more stringent. Two DUI's should mean serious jail time in my book. Because at that point, you've shown you don't care about the safety of others.

You shouldn't be able to get guns without serious background checks. And there should be a waiting period when buying a gun.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Yesterdays actions are WHY citizens need guns. Everyone of them.

That sounds good, but in practice doesn't hold up.

A Gun Rights Organization Staged a Re-Enactment of the "Charlie Hebdo" Shooting - Texas Monthly

[stevew]

Knowing where the exits are is always the best defense

[SirBlurton]

Originally Posted by stevew

Knowing where the exits are is always the best defense

Preventing easy access to firearms for lunatics and grudge bearers would likely also be on the list....

[jeff061]

Originally Posted by SirBlurton

Preventing easy access to firearms for lunatics and grudge bearers would likely also be on the list....

Right and how do you do that?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

I like to think that the rest of the civilized world is proof to the contrary Jon, but I don't expect you to alter your views ever.

When I decide to live in one of those places I'll give a larger damn about what mistakes they make. Til then, frankly, they're incredibly irrelevant.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Yesterdays actions are WHY citizens need guns.

Yes. More guns is clearly the answer.

Pew pew

[stevew]

Originally Posted by SirBlurton

Preventing easy access to firearms for lunatics and grudge bearers would likely also be on the list....

That's fine, but running is wildly successful

[Subby]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Dui kills more than guns every year, what are we banning cars or alcohol?

False equivalence.

[jeff061]

I don't think most people on the gun rights side of things understand what a false equivalence is. Even after reading the wiki.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

Yes. More guns is clearly the answer.

Pew pew

I don't get the mindset that we should all be carrying assault rifles to our corporate Christmas party. But then I'm also really bothered that my daughter is regularly taught how to hide if a shooter comes into her school.

[EagleFan]

Banning guns doesn't stop a terrorist.

[Kodos]

I don't think anyone is talking about banning guns. We're talking about making it harder for just anyone to get a gun. And of course you can't stop every terrorist. But maybe you can make it just a little harder for them to kill a bunch of innocent people?

[SirBlurton]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

Banning guns doesn't stop a terrorist.

What if the US doesn't BAN guns, but just makes them more difficult to acquire?

Would that stop one person who is mentally ill from shooting up an elementary school? If so, sounds like a reasonable step to take.

But I'm from the north, my frame of reference is all warped by not having the left and right political pressures in equilibrium.

[MacroGuru]

Banning Guns won't stop terrorists or gun related crimes.

Again, this is a mental health issue for most of these events. Figure out how to handle that, and we can solve a lot of the problems that happen.

[SirBlurton]

Originally Posted by MacroGuru

Banning Guns won't stop terrorists or gun related crimes.

Again, this is a mental health issue for most of these events. Figure out how to handle that, and we can solve a lot of the problems that happen.

Could restricting gun ownership more than it is currently restricted reduce the rate of gun rated crimes or make terrorists lives more difficult?

I agree that mental health is a big issue - but I just can't get my head around the fact that so many people want no action at all on the gun front...

[jeff061]

Originally Posted by Kodos

I don't think anyone is talking about banning guns. We're talking about making it harder for just anyone to get a gun. And of course you can't stop every terrorist. But maybe you can make it just a little harder for them to kill a bunch of innocent people?

This is what drives me crazy about this. I don't come down hard on either side of this equation. I'll never allow a gun in my house because I firmly believe there is larger chance of accidentally shooting a loved one than preventing an intruder, no matter how trained you are. On the flip side, I'm not as interested in telling other households what they can or can not do.

That said, this nebulous argument for "making it harder" to acquire guns. How? Easy to say that, where does it form in reality. It's a black and white issue to me. Either you take all guns away and start seeing changes in society around 2050 as the supply dries up or you don't take any way. Taking the middle will not accomplish anything.

A. How many of these shooting occur by people with squeaky clean records? There is no way to prevent that.
B. Even if you could, as long as some people can get guns legally there will be a black market for it.

So like I said, I don't come down strongly on either side. As long as I'm not being forced to own a gun.

[SirBlurton]

Originally Posted by jeff061

This is what drives me crazy about this. I don't come down hard on either side of this equation. I'll never allow a gun in my house because I firmly believe there is larger chance of accidentally shooting a loved one than preventing an intruder, no matter how trained you are. On the flip side, I'm not as interested in telling other households what they can or can not do.

That said, this nebulous argument for "making it harder" to acquire guns. How? Easy to say that, where does it form in reality. It's a black and white issue to me. Either you take all guns away and start seeing changes in society around 2050 as the supply dries up or you don't take any way. Taking the middle will not accomplish anything.

A. How many of these shooting occur by people with squeaky clean records? There is no way to prevent that.
B. Even if you could, as long as some people can get guns legally there will be a black market for it.

So like I said, I don't come down strongly on either side. As long as I'm not being forced to own a gun.

I don't think it's all that nebulous.

In Canada we just throw loads of bureaucracy at the problem. Boom - guns are more difficult (but not impossible) to acquire.

I agree it's not a short term "fix" that sorts out every issue. But it's a thing that can be done in the short term. Do it and see if it helps. Set a new goal...Maybe a mass shooting every other day as a start? Then work towards a mass shooting every 3 or 4 days??? I'm spitballing here...

[Jukeman]

If they treated illegal guns like they treat illegal drugs then maybe....oh forget it.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by Kodos

We do have a ban on combining alcohol and cars (over a certain limit). And I think those laws should be much more stringent. Two DUI's should mean serious jail time in my book. Because at that point, you've shown you don't care about the safety of others.

You shouldn't be able to get guns without serious background checks. And there should be a waiting period when buying a gun.

We also have bans on combining owning guns for prior felons and several other conditions.

[CU Tiger]

BTW who wants to wager before the details come out whether the guns were obtained legally?

Which if they were auto, as reported in this thread, we know they were not.
So a guy bought an illegal gun on the black market and killed a bunch of people with it and the response is, we ant allow people to legally buy guns.

Until you destroy every gun in MEXICO you wont stop criminal obtaining them....it is much easier to hide a gun than it is to hide drugs and look how much that is smuggled in.

It sounds quaint, wave a magic wand and eliminate all guns. It is physically 100% impossible. Period.

[Ben E Lou]

**WARNING: LONG POST**

You have been forewarned.

In 1965, 1975, and even 1985, East Urban Heights (my old 'hood--a working-class, black neighborhood,) was mostly populated by home-owning two-parent families. But in 1995, 2005, and most certainly 2015, that was no longer the case. The standard house in EUH is 864 square feet. Over time, the "good kids" went off to college, the military, or learned a trade, and we pursued something of the American Dream, moving into "better" neighborhoods with bigger houses. The "bad kids" stayed home, got in trouble, went to jail, came back from jail, hung out on the corner, and eventually were a major part of dragging the neighborhood down.

Some time in the late 60s/early 70s, a young couple named Wiggins bought the house next door to my parents' house and birthed/raised four girls over the years. (I was born in '68, and I have no memory of the Wiggins family *not* being our next-door neighbors.) Mr. and Mrs. Wiggins are now in their early 70s. They have both retired. They still live in that house. I try to go see them when I'm home. Their 864-square foot house is plenty for the two of them. All four of their girls and/or their husbands are gainfully employed, live in the Columbus area, and there are grandkids to enjoy now. Mr. Wiggins's brother bought a house on that same street in the late 60s/early 70s as well, and he and his wife are still there, too. Both of THEIR kids are also married, moved on, and gainfully employed. The Wiggins brothers and their wives aren't going anywhere. I doubt they can afford to. I just checked Zillow. The ZEstimate value of both homes is under $45K. I know for a fact that the next-door Mr. Wiggins keeps a loaded gun in his home to protect himself and his wife from the neighborhood thugs, and I would think that his brother does, too. If they didn't have guns, there's little/no question that the thugs who have basically taken over that neighborhood would come in and help themselves to their things.

Because there is zero chance that the hoodlum predators in that neighborhood are going to give up their weapons or their lifestyles of crime, I want Mr. Wiggins to be able to keep his gun. But if there was any way whatsoever to get the guns out of the hands of the thugs in EUH, I'd be the first to sign up for that.

When I was on staff with Young Life, I met a small-time rancher who owned property in a remote part of Colorado, near one of our camps. One summer in particular there was a terrible problem with mountain lions. (We had multiple sightings at our quite-developed camp, even.) I don't know much about automatic weapons, but I know that he mentioned that he had to get some to protect his animals, because neither he nor his men could shoot a charging mountain lion without them.

However, the Planned Parenthood shooter also lived in a remote part of Colorado. I want the rancher to be able to protect his livelihood. But I don't want the nutjob who shot up that clinic to have access to any weapons.

The "mass shootings" get all the press, but I strongly suspect that "run-of-the-mill" murders (guy gets drunk and shoots his estranged wife/girlfriend, gang-related shootings, suicides, etc.) are significantly higher than the total of the mass killings. I'd think we'd all agree that not many of those (maybe suicides) would get stopped with "reasonable" gun control.

I could go on, but you get the point. I'm not far-left or far-right on this issue, and I'm a realist. It's unrealistic in *this* country to get rid of all guns. It's unrealistic to think that we can eliminate gun-related deaths/injuries. But it does seem realistic--in theory--to think that we can reduce them without trampling on rights and safety.

All that said, is it realistic in *practice* to think that anything will get through the House any time soon? I seriously doubt it. I strongly suspect that the "pro-gun" side has an near-unbreakable majority there right now. Of course, for political reasons nearly all (if not all) Republicans would vote against anything perceived as "bowing to the left." But there are also enough Democrats who represent rural and semi-rural areas that supporting anything too strict would be committing political suicide. (Heck, as far-left as Sanders is generally considered to be, he has the most "pro-gun" voting record of the Ds running from President.)

So I guess what I'm saying in short (yes, I know, wayyyyyy too late for "in short" ) is that I'd like to see measures that would help reduce the number of guns that are in the hands of crazies and criminals. That said, I don't see it being realistic to think that's going to happen any time soon.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by Subby

False equivalence.

It is not a false equivalence though. In both cases the misuse or mis-combination of legal and beneficial tools causes injury or death to otherwise uninvolved parties.

Originally Posted by jeff061

I don't think most people on the gun rights side of things understand what a false equivalence is. Even after reading the wiki.

herp,derp,herp he is pro-gun he must be stoopid, can't possibly be as smart as me I'm sophisticate and for peace. herp,derp

Not even worth engaging a contest with that mindset...

[SirBlurton]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

BTW who wants to wager before the details come out whether the guns were obtained legally?

Which if they were auto, as reported in this thread, we know they were not.
So a guy bought an illegal gun on the black market and killed a bunch of people with it and the response is, we ant allow people to legally buy guns.

Until you destroy every gun in MEXICO you wont stop criminal obtaining them....it is much easier to hide a gun than it is to hide drugs and look how much that is smuggled in.

It sounds quaint, wave a magic wand and eliminate all guns. It is physically 100% impossible. Period.

Holy heck...who would possibly advocate eliminating all guns??? Is that argument being made by anyone?

There are actions that could be taken to make it more difficult to acquire long guns, for example. There are reports that at least one weapon used in the attack was legally acquired.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I'm more than a tiny bit amused by being pretty much the only guy in my circles to be suggesting that we wait for the evidence instead of just assuming the motivation here was what it appears to be & likely is.

I mean, it's not like anything is going to change by guessing correctly anyway so why not let the investigation run its course?

[MacroGuru]

Originally Posted by SirBlurton

I agree that mental health is a big issue - but I just can't get my head around the fact that so many people want no action at all on the gun front...

But here is where state controlled / government controlled / big brother gets a lot of people freaked out. In fact, I am not a fan of some of the measures in states that made it harder.

The NY Safe Act was one bill that was part of my decision to move back to Utah. I now live in a state that could probably militarize and have an armed army just from their civilians, yet the amount of shootings that happen here from LEGAL weapons are almost nil. The bulk of the ones happen from guns that have been ILLEGALLY obtained, which is the case most of the time.

I hate getting into this topic because I am torn on the issue. I am all for harder background checks, but I am not for state mandated gun registration because it makes it easier for someone to show up on my doorstep and say you have X,Y,Z and we want them now or you will be jailed (Yes extreme...Red Dawn...but I fear that is where we are headed)

[SirBlurton]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

**WARNING: LONG POST**


So I guess what I'm saying in short (yes, I know, wayyyyyy too late for "in short" ) is that I'd like to see measures that would help reduce the number of guns that are in the hands of crazies and criminals. That said, I don't see it being realistic to think that's going to happen any time soon.

I've been reading this forum since the first FOF came out and I have a lot of respect for you and the way you approach problems, Ben.

I think it's really telling that a person with a completely reasonable thought process about the whole "gun" situation has no option other than to throw their hands up in the air and say, "it isn't going to change". That to me is the biggest problem - there's no room in the debate for reasonable people...the debate polarized into two flavors of fringe insanity.

[Schmidty]

I just want to acknowledge the police in this situation. They get dumped on constantly, sometimes for good reason, but these men and women did an amazing job. 4 minutes to the site was quick and there could have been so many more dead if they hadn't been as efficient as they were.

[Jukeman]

I don't get the "I don't want to register my guns because I don't want the government showing up at my door step" as if you don't register your car, fill out a census. Lol most of y'all probably even register your electronics. Not to mention anytime you use your membership card at the grocery store you are registering your food.

[SirBlurton]

Originally Posted by MacroGuru

But here is where state controlled / government controlled / big brother gets a lot of people freaked out. In fact, I am not a fan of some of the measures in states that made it harder.

The NY Safe Act was one bill that was part of my decision to move back to Utah. I now live in a state that could probably militarize and have an armed army just from their civilians, yet the amount of shootings that happen here from LEGAL weapons are almost nil. The bulk of the ones happen from guns that have been ILLEGALLY obtained, which is the case most of the time.

I hate getting into this topic because I am torn on the issue. I am all for harder background checks, but I am not for state mandated gun registration because it makes it easier for someone to show up on my doorstep and say you have X,Y,Z and we want them now or you will be jailed (Yes extreme...Red Dawn...but I fear that is where we are headed)

I probably need to move on from this debate myself, but I am glad I live in a city where we worry about knives more than we have to worry about guns...although that has been changing in the past couple of years.